Dr Konqi still misbehaving - advice needed

[Ben Cooksley]

On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 6:58 PM, Ian Wadham <iandw.au at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Ben,

Hi Ian,

>
> On 27/11/2014, at 8:05 AM, Ben Cooksley wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 8:40 PM, Ian Wadham <iandw.au at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 26/11/2014, at 12:49 PM, Ian Wadham wrote:
>>>> So far the log shows that my patch is definitely there, in the distribution, but
>>>> Bugzilla still returns a 410 error, even though it has been given a token (as
>>>> required for version 4.4.6 of Bugzilla software).
>>>
>>> I have a feeling that KDE software behind Dr Konqi, on Linux, is still sending
>>> cookies to bugs.kde.org via kio_http and maybe that confilcts with the later
>>> sending of the token in the XML message-data.  See attached log extract.
>>>
>>> I would not have a clue how to tackle that potential issue.  It does not happen
>>> (for me) on Apple OS X, because KCookieJar is not working for me and
>>> anyway my cookies are kept by Apple OS X in Safari or Firefox.
>>
>> Could the user who encountered this problem logout of Bugzilla in
>> Konqueror, then try to reproduce the issue perhaps?
>
> 1. I could do that, but I think it would be quicker and more efficient if someone
>     from the list here could set up a test on bugstest.kde.org and reproduce the
>     problem in Linux, as you originally suggested.  The bug would probably be
>     reproducible in KF5, with Hrvoje's patch, if developers are really allergic to
>     KDE 4… :-)  Note that to change database names, you have to edit Dr K source
>     and re-compile, so then we could easily insert further logs and patches as
>     the investigation progresses.  In my experience, getting users to do that kind
>     of stuff is unreliable and time consuming, and anyway we surely do not want
>     false or redundant crash reports going into the live Bugzilla database.
>
> 2. Should I attach the compressed log, which I sent you, to an email on this list?
>     It is 11-12 Kb of bzip2.  There are lots of other strange messages in it, besides
>     the ones about cookies, also some warnings I cannot interprete.

I don't think that will be necessary at this stage. What we need to do
is run some actual tests using Dr Konqi and see why it is failing.

>
>> I took a look at the Bugzilla codebase and can't see anything
>> immediately wrong which would cause a proper call to be blocked simply
>> because cookies were present.
>
> Bang goes that hypothesis(?), I think this is going to be a hard one to crack...

The Bugzilla codebase is complex though, so I could have missed
something subtle.
Hence why we're after a manual test with Dr Konqi.

>
> Cheers, Ian W.
>
>

Thanks,
Ben